When the lights go down in the city: 25,000 LEDs turn on in San Francisco

A gallery of the networked lights on the Bay Bridge on their first night.

SAN FRANCISCO, CA—On Tuesday night, the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge became the canvas to a huge 25,000 LED light show in honor of the bridge's 75th anniversary. Leo Villareal, the Bay Lights' artist (and an Ars reader!), has designed the piece so that a series of patterns will vary across one major section of the bridge each night for the next two years. Ars editor Cyrus Farivar and I ventured out into the cold rainy weather to witness the debut of this groundbreaking piece of public art.

A special thanks to Ars reader Ben Hagen for lending us his balcony on Harrison Street, which gave us access to a spectacular view of the bridge.

As viewed from San Francisco, the Bay Bridge sits behind many piers and ferry terminals that surround the city.

As viewed from San Francisco, the Bay Bridge sits behind many piers and ferry terminals that surround the city.

San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee (left), Bay Lights artist Leo Villareal (center), and Ben Davis (right), chairman of Illuminate the Arts, gave a press conference hours before the launch of the Bay Lights. Mayor Lee insisted that anyone could "imagine anything...in these lights."

Over 25,000 LED lights manufactured by Phillips adorn the Bay Bridge and are attached to its cables with zip-ties. The special Ty-Rap ties can last up to five years, are UV-rated, and have a steel grip.

All of these lights (as shown on this model) were installed late at night, when contractors could block off a lane on the freeway to put them up.

A crowd of people gathers along the Embarcadero before the debut of the Bay Lights. Some people had been camping out since before sunset. Right before the show began, cars were double parking on the main road for a chance to see the show.

The Bay Lights start off as solid lines...

... and then gradually shift through different patterns and designs as the night wears on. If you click through the next few photos in rapid succession, you can almost see the animation on the bridge.

Some of the designs looked like cascading waterfalls, while some of the displays looked like fish swimming through water.

Mayor Lee referred to the Bay Lights as an accessible piece of art—no ticket is required. All you need to do is get to the right spot.

The Bay Lights required $8 million in private donations to stay up and running for two years.

Fortunately, those Phillips LED bulbs are somewhat energy efficient, as each bulb only uses up a single watt.

Referred to as "computer-driven imagery," some of the designs were indeed very abstract...

...and the images they emitted really depend on an individual's interpretation.

For instance, I thought I saw a Japanese ink brush flow through the bridge's steel cables.

But, you may see something entirely different.

The Bay Lights will turn on every night for the next two years on the northern side of the western span of the bridge, between San Francisco and Treasure Island. They are not visible to drivers along the bridge at all.
Mayor Lee says that he hopes the Bay Lights can stay up beyond their two-year tenure.

Commemorative pins with interactive LED lights can be purchased for $300. Created by Illuminode, sales of the pendant benefit Illuminate the Arts and the Bay Lights project. Each pendant also reacts to other pendants nearby, as well as with fixed points on Pier 14 near the Bay Bridge.

It's only fitting that they illuminate the San Francisco portion of the bridge, since the Oakland side between Treasure Island and the East Bay is a hideous stretch of metallic junk. Not even golly-gee lights can prettify that pig.

This is just mind blowing. I can't wait to see the video. May be there is an early post of this show. Going to enjoy the show.

The concept CGI is way frenetic, and the NYT's video gets the sense of it pretty well.

I had heard about this coming but was still quite surprised when I looked out of my office window early Monday. It's a bit subtle, looked like maybe clouds floating in front.

I get into work very early — 5:00–5:30 — so this should be a pleasant background if they keep it going until near sunrise. BTW, having seen a couple of the Christo works and several light sculptures elsewhere, this is a fine example of the class of art, IMHO.

First thought, "wow, only 1 watt? And they're that bright? Those are awesome bulbs."

And then a beat later, "But that means that display is pulling 75,000 watts!"

No wonder it will cost so much to run. Wow. And I'm both impressed at the frugality, and horrified at the waste, simultaneously.

The Today show pulled that same thing this morning and had to mea culpa after the break saying it only costs $15 a night (CNN says $30, but that's a trivial difference really). Which puts the power costs at under 1% of the total project cost over its lifetime.

Walt French wrote:

I get into work very early — 5:00–5:30 — so this should be a pleasant background if they keep it going until near sunrise.

The lighting looks less functional and more cosmetic. But I guess you have to "be there".

But the patterning would be a distraction to driving and an annoyance on a regular basis.

Less functional and more cosmetic. Kind of like how portraits in oil on canvas aren't functional because they won't fit in your wallet. You don't understand the purpose of art, do you? Have you ever been to an art gallery of any kind?

The Today show pulled that same thing this morning and had to mea culpa after the break saying it only costs $15 a night (CNN says $30, but that's a trivial difference really).

Hmm, I wonder how that squares with 75,000 watts? Seems like it should be more.

Looks like power is about 23 cents per kilowatt-hour in California. 75,000 watts is 75 kilowatt-hours per hour, or $17.25 an hour. It looks like run time should be about 8 hours per night, since it turns off at 2AM. So, assuming worst case of all bulbs on all the time, running 8 hours a night, call it $138/night for full usage, $4,140/mo, $99,360 over a 24-month term.

That should be worst-case, or close to it. The real cost is probably a fair bit lower, since not all the bulbs will be on all the time, and it will probably only run about 5 hours a night in the summer, maybe 10 hours in the winter, but probably not averaging 8 hours/night.

The electricity is definitely a noticeable expense, but quite small compared to the overall $8 million budget.

So they can't have plastic bags because they're bad for the environment, but the city can waste 25,000 high-performance LEDs and the electricity to power them on decorating a bridge, every night, for two years. Plus the cost of the manpower to put up/take down/maintain such things.

Don't get me wrong I think this is cool, but the attitude is kinda hypocritical.

So they can't have plastic bags because they're bad for the environment, but the city can waste 25,000 high-performance LEDs and the electricity to power them on decorating a bridge, every night, for two years. Plus the cost of the manpower to put up/take down/maintain such things.

Don't get me wrong I think this is cool, but the attitude is kinda hypocritical.

The Today show pulled that same thing this morning and had to mea culpa after the break saying it only costs $15 a night (CNN says $30, but that's a trivial difference really).

Hmm, I wonder how that squares with 75,000 watts? Seems like it should be more.

Looks like power is about 23 cents per kilowatt-hour in California. 75,000 watts is 75 kilowatt-hours per hour, or $17.25 an hour. It looks like run time should be about 8 hours per night, since it turns off at 2AM. So, assuming worst case of all bulbs on all the time, running 8 hours a night, call it $138/night for full usage, $4,140/mo, $99,360 over a 24-month term.

That should be worst-case, or close to it. The real cost is probably a fair bit lower, since not all the bulbs will be on all the time, and it will probably only run about 5 hours a night in the summer, maybe 10 hours in the winter, but probably not averaging 8 hours/night.

The electricity is definitely a noticeable expense, but quite small compared to the overall $8 million budget.

Since I have no idea how you are getting 75,000 watts in the first place... If they are 1 watt each, it is only 25,000 watts as there are only 25,000 lights. Which squares a lot better with $30 a night because it is roughly a third of what you quoted.

So they can't have plastic bags because they're bad for the environment, but the city can waste 25,000 high-performance LEDs and the electricity to power them on decorating a bridge, every night, for two years. Plus the cost of the manpower to put up/take down/maintain such things.

Don't get me wrong I think this is cool, but the attitude is kinda hypocritical.

So they can't have plastic bags because they're bad for the environment, but the city can waste 25,000 high-performance LEDs and the electricity to power them on decorating a bridge, every night, for two years. Plus the cost of the manpower to put up/take down/maintain such things.

Don't get me wrong I think this is cool, but the attitude is kinda hypocritical.

It's privately funded. Why don't you go have a water and cool down.

So were the plastic bags. *shrug*

Ok, let's go ahead and get to the bottom of this cat bag.WHAT, exactly, are you claiming is hypocritical and WHY is it hypocritical?

I read the original comments in an earlier post on the subject and saw the "Great Internet Knocking Machine" immediately crank into action and predictably most people who commented negatively had never even seen the installation in action... I wonder how many changed their take on the subject after seeing the video of it in action?

Personally I love it. I think its a great piece of art makes an otherwise mundane structure seem much prettier. If I have the chance to get down to S.F. this summer I'll definitely search out a good spot to take a look. I wish they would do something similar with some of the Bridges in Portland Or...

The Today show pulled that same thing this morning and had to mea culpa after the break saying it only costs $15 a night (CNN says $30, but that's a trivial difference really).

Hmm, I wonder how that squares with 75,000 watts? Seems like it should be more.

Looks like power is about 23 cents per kilowatt-hour in California. 75,000 watts is 75 kilowatt-hours per hour, or $17.25 an hour. It looks like run time should be about 8 hours per night, since it turns off at 2AM. So, assuming worst case of all bulbs on all the time, running 8 hours a night, call it $138/night for full usage, $4,140/mo, $99,360 over a 24-month term.

That should be worst-case, or close to it. The real cost is probably a fair bit lower, since not all the bulbs will be on all the time, and it will probably only run about 5 hours a night in the summer, maybe 10 hours in the winter, but probably not averaging 8 hours/night.

The electricity is definitely a noticeable expense, but quite small compared to the overall $8 million budget.

Since I have no idea how you are getting 75,000 watts in the first place... If they are 1 watt each, it is only 25,000 watts as there are only 25,000 lights. Which squares a lot better with $30 a night because it is roughly a third of what you quoted.

Don't forget the power requirements of the 528 power & data supply boxes, and the losses inherent in 100,000 feet of wiring. Total consumption of the system as a whole is between 150kWh and 175kWh, and the system operates for 7 hours per night.

Don't forget the power requirements of the 528 power & data supply boxes, and the losses inherent in 100,000 feet of wiring. Total consumption of the system as a whole is between 150kWh and 175kWh, and the system operates for 7 hours per night.

I'm not an electrical engineer and really don't care. The quoted cost is $15-30 a night.

First thought, "wow, only 1 watt? And they're that bright? Those are awesome bulbs."

And then a beat later, "But that means that display is pulling 75,000 watts!"

No wonder it will cost so much to run. Wow. And I'm both impressed at the frugality, and horrified at the waste, simultaneously.

And yet the last time I was on that bridge, I was working on a TV show being filmed on Treasure island (season 4 of BattleBots)Just our 'standard main filming' light load was 75,000W, we also had a 100,000 'lightning light'. If that helps put it in perspective. Even in early November, that lighting took the arena temp upto 130F (which is why we didn't film in summer after the first season, which included the day when SF hit 111F)

So they can't have plastic bags because they're bad for the environment, but the city can waste 25,000 high-performance LEDs and the electricity to power them on decorating a bridge, every night, for two years. Plus the cost of the manpower to put up/take down/maintain such things.

Don't get me wrong I think this is cool, but the attitude is kinda hypocritical.

It's privately funded. Why don't you go have a water and cool down.

So were the plastic bags. *shrug*

LEDs once installed are used for years. A plastic bag on the other hand, maybe a few minutes to a few hours at most...

Florence Ion / Florence was a former Reviews Editor at Ars, with a focus on Android, gadgets, and essential gear. She received a degree in journalism from San Francisco State University and lives in the Bay Area.